32 replies to this topic

[Tarl_Cabot]

And Tarl, a movie feeling like the 80s is never a good thing. It just makes it dated, where the older films in the series feel almost timeless. Furthermore, the 80s was by far the worst era the modern world has seen - it just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Awful fashions, awful music... it's an era I can have no nostalgia for.

I always appreciate your confident opinions Harmsway but you're positively loco with that statement.True, some of the fashions are embarrassing but do you like drooping pants? Grunge? The 90s was the lamest decade ever as it had no identity of it's own-just rehashing the 70s...and other already done fads...The 80s had the best movies of any decade ever;1980-1984 was like the utopia for film geeks. Awful music??? The 80s had the second best era of music ever(70's are # 1 in my book). The era was the most diverse ever with new wave, punk, rap(good rap, not trash), glam rock , heavy metal and the last era to have decent top 40 music. MTV actually played (good) music back then.

[Harmsway]

True, some of the fashions are embarrassing but do you like drooping pants? Grunge? The 90s was the lamest decade ever as it had no identity of it's own-just rehashing the 70s...and other already done fads...

The 90s was something of a non-entity, but at least it didn't leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

The 80s had the best movies of any decade ever; 1980-1984 was like the utopia for film geeks.

Nah. Every other decade had just as many great and worthwhile films.

Awful music??? The 80s had the second best era of music ever(70's are # 1 in my book). The era was the most diverse ever with new wave, punk, rap(good rap, not trash), glam rock , heavy metal and the last era to have decent top 40 music.

Meh. Give me the stuff in the 90s over the 80s stuff any day. And 80s likewise has nothing on the 70s, 60s, 50s, or even the 40s.

MTV actually played (good) music back then.

MTV has *never* played good music.

[Publius]

The point is the cinematography isn't something really remarkable - there's no "Oh, that's a fantastic shot" reaction. It's just all capable filmwork, nothing outstanding, nothing innovative. That's certainly good and fine, but I think these sequences would be much better if there was some better talent directing where that camera was pointed.

I think there are quite a few, at least in the Dalton movies, such as the "I got the message" scene in TLD. I still believe AVTAK through LTK could have been shot better, but to me it seemed John Glen was at least more "in sync" with Dalton's Bond.

With FYEO and OP, I think the scenery was exotic enough for me that any weaknesses in cinematography were overlooked. That could even apply to many of the other Bonds.

Marginally? Adjusted? I'm going by the actual figures. AVTAK made $50 million US, LTK made $40 million. $10 million more is not marginal.

AVTAK made $50 million domestic, but LTK only $34 million. However, AVTAK was $152 million overall, and LTK $156 million. So AVTAK only made more when adjusted (a fairer comparison, to be sure), and then only by no spectacular amount.

Still, the point was that AVTAK's performance as worst to that point on the tail-end of a six-year decline in ticket sales would be enough to make me want to evaluate the direction of the franchise were I to be calling the shots in 1987 (as the OP proposed). If the suggestion was 1989, then LTK would be in my immediate memory instead.